beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On August 23, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s Class I large, Class I, Class I, and Class II ordinary car driving license (license number: C) as of October 16, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven BM5 car on the bus platform in front of the bus platform in the 19th Soon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Co., Ltd. under the influence of alcohol on August 23, 2016, by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on September 22, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry in Eul 1, 2, Eul 6 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is considered to have passed a considerable time after driving with the company's car clubs, and it was found to have been driven under the influence of alcohol. Since the re-acquisition of the driver's license around 1996, the plaintiff had no record of driving under the influence of alcohol for about 20 years, since he had been employed as an employee in charge of business in the company, the driver's license is essential, the married wife and adopted son and her mother should be supported, and when the driver's license is revoked, the disposition in this case is so harsh that the plaintiff's qualification as an employee in charge of the cargo transport is revoked.
B. Even if the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving is an administrative agency's discretionary act, in light of today's mass means of transportation, and the situation where a driver's license is issued in large quantities, the increase of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the seriousness of the result, etc., the need for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving should be emphasized, and the revocation of a driver's license on the ground of drinking driving on the ground of drinking driving should be prevented rather than the disadvantage of the party to whom the revocation would be suffered, unlike the revocation of the general beneficial administrative act.